Tuesday, December 05, 2006

(from MZone wire reports) Gainesville, FL -- College football fans were stunned to learn that Katherine Harris, the controversial former Florida Secretary of State who presided over her state's contested 2000 Presidential Election, is the "Harris" behind the Harris Interactive Poll, one of the three elements - along with the USA TODAY Coaches' Poll and the computer rankings - used to determine who plays in the national championship game.

Yesterday, her poll declared Florida #2, leapfrogging the University of Michigan, and sending the Gators to the championship game in Glendale, Arizona, to face Ohio State. But the MZone has learned Harris unilaterally certified her poll's results before anyone could question some of the irregular voting in the Harris Poll.

"I didn't need people asking stupid questions like who the fuck are the jokers in the Harris Poll and why do some ballots make no sense," said Harris when asked if she thought that was proper. "It's Florida and involves voting, so we'll do things how I damn well please."

Jokers indeed.

As first reported on Michigan Sports Center, some of the Harris Poll ballots left a lot of people scratching their heads such as these shown below:

The individual ballot oddities came after Florida coach Urban Meyer had been on the campaign trail the last three weeks, begging for a spot in the title game. Sources told the MZone that Harris was - quote - "nearly moved to tears" when she heard Meyer's pleas that leaving the Gators out of the BCS championship would be the greatest injustice in recorded human history and could potentially add to global warming.

Asked if Meyer's intense lobbying and tearful appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show influenced her actions or those of poll voters, Harris said, "We're talking about the BCS. It's supposed to make no sense and reward politicking."

When told about the true nature of the Harris Poll, Michigan head coach Lloyd Carr was stoic saying, "Well, that sure would explain a whole hell of a lot. In fact, it makes more sense than any other reason I've heard so far."

Any ballot that didn't have OSU #1 and UM/Florida in some combination of #2 and #3 is bad enough, but it's obviously some voters further manipulated their ballots to intentionally screw over certain teams.

I think you could vote Boise State number 2 if you have the conviction that undefeated teams should get a shot, and you voted that way all along. You could also place Louisville in the discussion. Let's not get so high and mighty we can't reasonably include them.

Wisconsin at 3 or 4 over Florida (well, if they beat OSU maybe) is questionable as is LSU at 3 over Michigan.

What I want to see is how these votes changed and run the blogpoll analysis of them. I feel bad that these people will likely receive spam or be harassed at some point, but I dislike anonymous ranking

This "Bias Free" computer was the only one to rank FU ahead of tOSU. Being that they throw out the highest and the lowest computer score for each school, this poll didn't factor into the final BCS numbers for any of the top 3. A closer look also reveals their final strength of schedule numbers. Here's their top nine...

Quit complaining. A few of the voters ranked Florida #5, but you fail to mention that.

Here is a tip. If you want to go to the National Championship, beat Ohio State. You had a shot, and you blew. Your vaunted defense gave up over 500 yards. Is this system fair? No. Is Michigan better than Florida? Maybe, maybe not. All we do know is Ohio State is better than Michigan. Deal with it, and lose with dignity.

If you read the original post, those people who voted Florida 5 are mentioned and called out. It is not whining to point out the subjectivity of the BCS. It is bad enough at differentiating teams. It is another thing for people to change their votes for reasons other than play on the field. Maybe 20% of Florida fans would claim that voters realized Florida was number 2. Votes changed for other reasons. Those other reasons are valid for giving Florida a chance, but they are not valid for changing a vote. This has implications beyond this year and beyond Michigan and is a severe flaw.

don't forget, florida did play, played a top 10 team, and won. that in itself may have been enough justification for voters to vote them ahead of michigan. it's not like both teams were idle and UF got moved ahead. the other thing hurting michigan, in the last 5 weeks, they played crappy against ball state, beat indiana, lost to OSU and were idle 2 weeks. out of sight out of mind for some people i bet. plus they really hadn't beaten a good team in almost 2 months (10/14 against PSU).

it's hard for almost everyone here because we all have a vested passionate interest in the teams involved. most voters don't. how would you feel if OSU, Michigan and Florida were replaced with UCLA, Arizona and Louisville for instance? if this came down to 3 teams that i didn't care about, i'd be looking at things like quality wins, strength of schedule, best losses, etc and it would be alot easier to make a rational unbiased decision. but people in arizona, kentucky and LA would be bitching about my vote (hopefully not all 3 of them!)and saying that I'm trying to sway the final outcome.

How does that happen? When you throw out games against 1-AA schools, the Pac 10 has a 17-9 record against other conferences. That puts them way behind the SEC (33-7), the Big Ten (27-10), and even the Big East (26-8). What gives?

Wow. Possibly your best work to date. Excellent pictures, and enjoyed perusing some of those final rankings. What does it take to become a voter in these things? A driver's license? $20? Two legs and a head? Amazing stuff. Anyway, nice work!

I'm disgusted. Man I was so mad last night I wanted to break shit. But, I calmed down, some what. Anyway, If USC wins Saturday night does anyone actually believe that Florida would have jumped Michigan in the final poll? Not hardly. This all came down to no re-match. And considering the NCG is supposed to be the best 2 teams in the nation, this is a travesty.

For the first time in my life I'm gonna cheer for tosu to crush Florida. How do I get a hat w/ BCS with a circle around it with a line through it? You folks should come up with one. I'd buy it.

The conference SOS rankings aren't that big a mystery. Those *can't* be influenced by intraconference games at all. It's purely who you play out of conference. So, look at the intraconference games listed here:

While the SEC and Big 12 were feasting on tasty C-USA and Sun Belt treats, and the Big Ten was gorging itself on its MAC buffet, the Pac 10 was taking on BCS teams and a more reasonable diet of less embarassing WAC and MWC teams (Boise, BYU, Nevada, Hawaii, Utah).

[And what, again, is the *incontrovertible evidence* that Boise and Louisville don't belong somewhere in the 2-5 range? That ranking them there is ridiculous or scandalous? There isn't any. Put them on the field in a playoff.]

More proof the system is screwed up even more than the surface shows - Tressel's future ability to vote in the coaches poll will now be under review since he abstained this past ballot. Unbelievable. Apparently having class and ethics (Tressel...Carr not playing media politics) gets you nowhere.

I think that God finally took vengance on Michigan for you guys making fun of His Irish so much.... As for Florida, they will get beat by at least 20 to OSU and the argument will end up as meaningless as it did back in 2000 when OU beat FSU in the title game (although Miami should have been there). That's what Urban will get for standing up Notre Dame to take the Florida job.

Well, I've got Michigan playing Arkansas in the first round of my NCAA Playoffs. Wouldn't it be great to head into next week excited about the first round matchup? You can see brackets at http://ccexplore.pokerworks.com.

Yost,your buddy Colin Cowherd is wetting himself w/ glee this a.m. only talking head in the world not only pushing FLA as the right choice, but that the BCS "works fine" and requires no fixing.

in the end, that's my real angst. the BCS was supposed to remove the human politicking and create an objective #1 vs #2 game. they didn't. they didn't get FLA into the game because they were better than michigan. they did it to prevent a rematch/share the wealth from the final game/stop a big ten lock on the mnc.

FLA's a good team but i haven't heard anyone but FLA fans suggest that they'd beat michigan. they're already an 8+ pt dog against tosu (we were a 6.5 dog in Columbus).

the BCS didn't create the 1 v 2 match up that is its sole purpose. instead, the followed the old pre BCS formula and created the game "america wants to see"/no rematch/FLA or somebody else should get their turn @ tosu match up. but they didn't do this because people woke up sunday a.m. thinking FLA is the better team after two weeks of them being ranked behind michigan w/ us both having one loss.

and anybody who thinks otherwise, answer this- if USC had won saturday, do you really think FLA would still have moved ahead of us in the polls from 4th to 3rd? puleeze. this would have never come up but for USC's loss.

personally, i don't have a problem w/ FLA playing. they're deserving, as was USC (and us). and until we have a playoff, people will get "Auburned". this year it's our turn. but we did get jobbed. all the other discussion on merits is just window dressing.

and i don't have a problem w/ the bowls & conferences jockeying for position. i grew up w/ that system. but then, what do we need the bcs for?

How could someone vote Florida number one? Really? Eh fuck em this system is imperfect and a playoff will follow. What if they put a playoff game into the Championship between the tied teams. Have Michigan and Florida settle it on the field. Then let the winner get owned by OSU!!!

It was clear to me in mid-October who the two best teams in the country were going to be this year - Ohio State and Michigan. I probably annoyed everyone on this site with that assertion, but the truth is the truth.

All I want to see in the BCS title game (if my favorite team is not in the running) - are the two best teams in the country playing for all the marbles. That is not what we are getting this year, and it's a damned shame.

It's good to see you boys are keeping your sense of humor. That's about all we've got left in these strange times.

Beast,thanks. if the BCS is supposed to create #1 vs #2, it should do just that. otherwise, we don't need the bcs at all.

Kraut,

the "conference champ" thing is just more smoke & mirrors. you don't hear anyone pitching Lousiville because they won theirs.

and while the Nebraska/OU prior appearances are cited as the "why" you should have to win your conference, they're so different as to be laughable. Neb/OU both got upset by lesser ranked teams, that pasted them by multiple TDs. both Neb/OU went on to play in the BCS game despite being torched in their conf championships.

Michigan finished second behind the team already playing in the BCS game. we didn't lose to a colorado or ksu by a ton. we lost to the #1 team by 3 pts, in cowtown.

btw- i'll give Urban a bit of credit. last night they asked him if he still thought the bcs was flawed, and he stuck to his previous answer that it needed reformed (though he hedged by not calling for a playoff). they also hit him w/ the clip of Lloyd's "inappropriate comments" statement. Urban said he had not seen it before, and while he didn't actually apologize, he did go out of his way to say "nice" things about both m & tosu.

he's still pretty smarmy, but i can't fault him for plugging his own self interest. it's the rest of the world buying it i question.

one last thought on rematches, i keep wondering how the BCS would react if instead of Michigan, the potential match up was tosu wisconsin? if the cheesers had beat michigan, what would the rest of the world do to prevent an all big ten final of undefeated teams that were co champs of their conference?

2 things. A) If OSU or UM were conf champs and missed out of the title game to a 2nd place team, I'm pretty sure most Wolverine and Buckeye fans would be playing the conf champs card. Along the same lines, if one of us were #3 with one loss and the top 2 teams in the field had already played late in the season and were big rivals (say Nebraska and Oklahoma), I'm pretty sure many fans up here would be playing the rematch card as well. A good example is when it was Michigan against USC for #2. USC fans were touting their tough OOC schedule and UM fans were saying so what (at least on gbw). As soon as it became Florida, some UM fans were pointing out Florida's weak OOC schedule compared to Michigan's. My point is, it's all relative. We're all going to pick and choose our "ammo" based on how it affects our beloved teams. If Michigan were #3 behind #2 West Virginia or Louisville right now, you better believe Wolverine fans would be talking about Strength of Schedule til their faces turned blue. When it's Florida or USC, SOS takes a back seat to best loss. It's all relative. (and this isn't a knock on Michigan or their fans - it's human nature for all fans).

B)The question about would Florida have passed UM if USC would have won is an interesting one. I agree with Jerry Palm in that voters weren't forced to measure UM against UF until now. They measured UM vs USC and that's it. Now they are being forced to reevaluate their ballots. Of course some are voting to avoid a rematch. Unfortunately, that's their given right - there are no rules or regulations for voting that say you have to pick the two best schools with no extenuating circumstances coming into play.

No difference, really. The SOS for any one team is equivalent to the conference SOS plus or minus individual schedule idiosyncracies (on average the worst team in a round robin conference will be the highest, not having to play themselves). Generally, these will be highly correlated within conference, as in fact they are. The individual Pac10 teams are all high on SOS because the overall Pac10 OOC schedule was on average tougher.

Bottom line. SOS for a given team will be generated in large part by the SOS of its conference, which comes from the conference's out of conference scheduling.

Rankings for given teams will be correlated within conference, too. With whole conferences moving up because they play tough OOC competition (e.g., Pac10) and/or consistently beat the OOC competition they do play (e.g., Big East).

Srudoff,oddly, i don't disagree w/ anything you said. i didn't want a rematch w/ tosu after we played in 2003 when folks thought usc would play OU in the sugar. i don't blame anyone not wanting one this year. and i'm very aware that if the polls had held up and we had been selected, the FLA fans would have been more outraged (or more whiney- hell, they're more whiney about being selected than we've been about not).

my point is that the bcs was supposed to eliminate the "politic" factor. all the points you make are subjective, human/emotional factors. winning your conference is NOT a bcs criteria. avoiding a rematch is NOT a bcs factor. preventing one conference from locking up the mnc before the game is NOT a bcs factor. giving the FLA/Auburns of the world "their shot" is NOT a bcs factor.

the sole purpose of the BCS is to create #1 vs #2. how many of these voters really think FLA is better than Michigan? certainly not Vegas. how about you? if FLA played Michigan on a neutral field, do you think they'd win?

the bcs continues to be a failure. not because it sent FLA instead of us. i happen to agree w/ most of the "political" arguments. it failed because it failed to follow its own formula/mandate to create 1 vs 2 and instead created "the game everyone in america wants to see".

when it came to a decision, the whole goal of matching 1 vs 2 went out the window and they reverted to the method of picking bowl opponents that we had before the bcs.

we had that before the bcs. we'd be better off going back to the old system (where the conferences had more sway individually) than what we've got now.

Do I think UM would be UF on a neutral field? Yes. But do I think there SHOULD be a clause that you have to be a conference champion to play in the title game? Yes. What happened this year is rare enough that it shouldn't stop that clause from happening. There are conferences for a reason and conference championships and title games for a reason. This year there isn't that clause of course but I think that there are a lot of people, especially coaches, that feel that way and voted that way.

Statprof,

care to articulate how Arizona state's SOS is rated #9 by sagarin with THIS ooc schedule then...

the person in charge of the BCS has NOTHING to do with the selection process once a season begins. do you think he called Harris poll voters or, even better, NCAA coaches and told them that the SEC was not missing out on his watch?

Know you're a ways up, but just wanted to comment on your 'bias free my ass' comment about the Colley Matrix's SOS formula.

I am not surprised at all that 8 of the top 9 teams in the matrix are Pac-10 teams. The Pac-10 was the only conference that instead of allowing teams to schedule an additional 1-AA game as part of the '12th game' instead added an addiiotnal in-conference game.

Instead of playing an additional 1-AA team, all Pac-10 teams played an in-conference foe. Granted, playing a team like Stanford might not be considered very strong, but when compared to, say, Western Michigan or Western Carolina, that's going to inflate their SOS.

The primary reason the Pac-10 did this was to increase their BCS chances. Looks like that worked from the SOS perspective, but their teams beat up on each other a little bit.

I have no doubt that given the debacle this year, the Big-10 might give some serious thought to this as well.

Besides, who wouldn't have wanted Wisconsin to play Ohio State, or Michigan to play Purdue?

Look, I'm not saying the Pac-10 is the greatest conference this year, but they clearly have a pretty strong argument that there are 6-7 *good* teams in that conference. You can't necessarily say the same thing about the Big-10 or ACC this year, and to a lesser extent, the SEC.

Know you're a ways up, but just wanted to comment on your 'bias free my ass' comment about the Colley Matrix's SOS formula.

I am not surprised at all that 8 of the top 9 teams in the matrix are Pac-10 teams. The Pac-10 was the only conference that instead of allowing teams to schedule an additional 1-AA game as part of the '12th game' instead added an addiiotnal in-conference game.

Instead of playing an additional 1-AA team, all Pac-10 teams played an in-conference foe. Granted, playing a team like Stanford might not be considered very strong, but when compared to, say, Western Michigan or Western Carolina, that's going to inflate their SOS.

The primary reason the Pac-10 did this was to increase their BCS chances. Looks like that worked from the SOS perspective, but their teams beat up on each other a little bit.

I have no doubt that given the debacle this year, the Big-10 might give some serious thought to this as well.

Besides, who wouldn't have wanted Wisconsin to play Ohio State, or Michigan to play Purdue?

Look, I'm not saying the Pac-10 is the greatest conference this year, but they clearly have a pretty strong argument that there are 6-7 *good* teams in that conference. You can't necessarily say the same thing about the Big-10 or ACC this year, and to a lesser extent, the SEC.

Surdoff,again, i agree that conf champ games could play a role in eliminating contenders, but it isn't a rule now.

from the BCS website:

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a five-game arrangement for post-season college football that is designed to match the two top-rated teams in a national championship game and to create exciting and competitive matchups between eight other highly regarded teams in four other games.

this is supposed to be the bcs' primary function. that's not what they did. they let the human/political factors determine the bcs game, not an objective assessment of who's #2.

all the other factors you and others have raised would be fine w/ me, IF they were part of the formula. they're not.

as far lobbying, are you too young to remember the 1973 rose bowl selection w/ in the big ten? how about in '02 when the big ten & pac commissioners "leaned" on the bcs to make sure USC & Iowa both found a bowl game.

of course lobbying takes place. of course lobbying took place last weekend.

oh I'm sure the commissioner of the SEC leaned on his coaches to vote for florida, just like i'm sure the same happened in the big ten (apparently ron zook didn't get the memo). but to imply that it completely turned a decision that is 33% coaches, 33% harris poll voters and 33% computers is a little too Oliver Stone for me.

i do remember 73 vaguely (I was 7) - that was lobbying within the big ten though if i recall. and in 2002 it was lobbying bowl games, not voters. so a little different in both cases than lobbying actual voters.

As an Auburn fan I have this to say. Michigan fans will never really know the definition of "screwed" until they go undefeated and don't even get one chance to play for all of the marbles. If michigan is truely the second best team in the country then the national championship took place 2 weeks ago. Now its florida's turn to play.

That being said, I thnk that both florida and michigan are great teams. Its a shame we dont have a system where all of the good teams have a shot to play for the national championship. For example, Auburn is the only team to beat two BCS teams (Fla and LSU) but what bowl game does auburn end up going to... The cotton bowl of all places. The only two teams that Auburn lost too are now top 25 teams. USC on the other hand loses to two unranked teams and somehow still stays in front of Auburn. Bottom line, there needs to be some sort of playoff system and the USC/Pac-10 bias is getting out of hand. Thats all I've got.

Let's see, what's more questionable - picking your votes to make sure the BCS picks what team you honestly think deserves a title shot, or going offsides repeatedly & intentionally on a kickoff to burn the clock so the other team doesn't have a chance to come back on you.

A playoff system could still be subject to the "people factor", but at least the effect of the potential impact would be decreased.

Interesting list of coaches that voted Michigan #2- pretty regionalized except for Troy and Central Florida- two teams that freaking loathe the SEC for sure and two schools who's recruiting could be hurt by an SEC team in the title match.

I personally believe it reasonable that Michigan or Florida could both deserve to be ranked #2. It sucks they can't play for the chance on the field. What if they received identical BCS score? What's the tie-breaker decision for the last BCS of the season before bowls?

That's some nice, rational thought, Wareagledan. Nobody will ever be screwed more than Auburn 04. They went fucking undefeated...and had Cadillac Williams and Ronnie Brown. Now the SEC needs to whoop that ass in the bowls. And Go Gators!

SIC, My sense of the BCS was never that they had a new plan for matching up the two best teams, but followed the same old plan, except all conferences were now on board. If you recall, with the old Bowl Alliance(pre-BCS), every major conference had an agreement for the National Championship game except for the Pac-10 & Big 10, who held on to the Rose Bowl. What the BCS did was include all conferences so that #1 vs. #2 would be in one game instead of possibly two, i.e. 1997.

Really, they never improved on deciding who #1 and #2 were, but just used more polls to decide. Anyone who said it was going to be objective was both trying to fool themselves and trying to fool those around them. A playoff won't solve the problem either, because it will still be based on those ranking systems, and someone will be left out eventually, unless you want to do an 119 team tournament.

I think our only chance this year to squeeze in would have been for Florida to trade for the USC cheerleader, so that she would lobby and cheer for Michigan on poll day.

Maybe you could check your omniscience at the door for this discussion? You seem so certain that everyone who voted Florida ahead of Michigan ONLY did it because 1) Urban Meyer controls their minds, 2) They hate Michigan with a blind, white-hot hatred, 3) They don't want a rematch.

Um, what if some of them think Florida is the 2nd best team in the nation? Is that so unreasonable? And why would it be categorically wrong to jump Michigan after Florida beat a good Arkansas team? I think everyone is getting a little too carried away with the "we were jobbed" thing to realize that, hey, Florida is a damn good team. A lot of OBJECTIVE fans do think Florida would beat Michigan.

I guess it's just funny to me that everyone here seems to think it is an outright fact that Michigan is the 2nd best team in the nation, when you could make as good a case (or better) for at least one other team, possibly more. Beast in Bama knew they were the two best in mid-October? Jeebus, give me a break.

Srudoff, given the margins in the polls, they didn't need to lobby everyone, just enough. and i don't think it was a "real" conspiracy, as much as a very public, media driven campaign. sort of like P&G introducing a new line of dish washing liquid w/ a clever campaign ad.

and here's the really funny part- all the mark mays of the world, trumpeting FLA's qualifications? where do you think they'll be when you spank them by a couple/three TDs in the game? tosu is going to pound FLA and you know it. it won't be close by half time.

then, after it's clear michigan was a better team than FLA, gave tosu a better match (in columbus no less) and would have likely played them close (or at least closer than FLA did) again, do you think we'll read anything about how the bcs & pollsters got it wrong? when the score ends up something like 42-17, do you think lou holtz is going to make the mea culpa "gee, maybe FLA wasn't really the second best team"??

no. they're all going to go on like they got this right.

frankly, maybe i'll wait until after half of america has turned the tv off in the 3rd quarter, and then email may/holtz/meyer/danielson et al, and ask them: "are you really sure that was the game america wanted to see??"

Jones,where have you seen anything written saying anyone (other gator fans) thinks Fla is a better team? vegas puts us a 6 pt favorite against them. we were a 6 pt dog in columbus gainst tosu. we were a projected 5 pt dog this time around. vegas has FLA as 8+ pt dog already.

and it's not about hating michigan or loving urban (where did you read that?). it's about the bcs waking up sunday morning, realizing usc had lost, and thinking "oh shit, if the polls don't change, the big ten will lock up the mnc".

sure. some of the pollsters probably thought FLA looked better. but do you really think that all the coaches and all the harris' polsters who switched their vote, after two weeks of carrying Fla one or two places behind michigan, woke up and suddenly changed their minds? or stupider still, looked at the two teams seriously for the first time?

not a conspiracy theory. just a wide spread reaction to the situation.

i'm not omniscient (though omnipotence would probably be cool)so please post any non FLA websites/news articles, etc., trumpeting that vegas and the rest of the world is wrong, and that FLA is a better team and would beat michigan. i'd love to read them.

Sorry I haven't been here for a bit--some idiot on the lsuoverusc site caused me some problems. Anyway, I just want to support Michigan--you guys backed us in the stupid 2003 "fight" over the split and must return the favor.

It's sad when the system caused the Rose Bowl to be a consolation prize. However, when it comes to class you guys are still the winners. We look forward to a true traditional classic game although we both have to stay out of a stupor after this weekend.

Well, fortunately, I wasn't talking about how a bunch of writers have been talking about Florida being better than Michigan, Florida deserving the NC game, etc., because, frankly, who cares? I'm talking about objective fans. In that list I would include myself and any of the 25 or so people I've talked college ball with in the last week. We don't live in Michigan or Ohio; I'm guessing that's where the disconnect is. You have to realize that there's a world outside of the midwest/north, that doesn't immediately assume Michigan to be #2. I'm sure their reasoning varies, but it's naive to assume that, "If you have the gall to put Michigan 3rd, it can only be because they didn't win their conference or because they've already played OSU."

As for the writers who voted Florida #2, well, I'd just as soon not sift through a bunch of poorly-written sports articles to find out why they moved the Gators up. But, again referring to the above point, you're fooling yourself if you think this was only done because of a distaste for a UM/OSU rematch. Maybe, just MAYBE, some of them decided, "You know what? If Florida wasn't a REALLY good team, they would not have beaten #9 LSU, #8 Arkansas, and #13 Tennessee. It's entirely likely, that, based on their impressive wins and their only loss being to another quality team, they may be the #2 team in the country. I'll vote them that way."

Anyway, consider me "the rest of the world", the voice of the common man unfortunate enough to not be a fan of the unequivocally, undoubtedly, inarguably 2nd best team on the face of the earth, Michigan. (Who was voted down to #3 in the polls).

And another completely random aside (well, kinda). The second-most ridiculous thing to me about the whole process (aside from not having a playoff or at LEAST a +1 game), is the fact that these games will be played over a MONTH after the teams played their last game--in Michigan and Ohio State's case, MUCH more than a month later. So anything can happen; it's like the first game of the season again. One team usually comes out flat, one comes out on fire, and it seems to be completely random. That's why many of the games turn out to be complete crapfests, and, in my opinion, are actually pretty shaky as far as determining who the best team THAT SEASON was. What if OSU comes out flat after a 6-week layoff, and the Gators come out sharp? Florida wins by 17. Are they then definitely the best team? Of course not. It just seems like a poor barometer of quality, to say, "Alright, good season, you're in the game. Now wait a month, gorge yourself over the holidays, and you can play the most important game of your career next year. Good luck!" Stupid.

By Florida fan logic, Boise State should be in the championship game, right? They won their conference and have ZERO losses, so don't they deserve to play Ohio State? This garbage about the SEC being the best conference makes me sick. Why does everyone say it's the best conference? Can anyone in that conference succeed on offense without a trick play? Seriously, did everyone watch that Ark/Fla game on Saturday? Also, feel free to have ANY real SEC team play a non-conference game on the road! What a joke. Ohio State will win by at least 21, LSU will lose by 14, Wisconsin will win by 13 and then what will Urban say about his beloved SEC?

Jones,so you don't have any references about which team is better, other than your own? don't have time to google that one, huh? that's what i thought. you'll excuse me for being underwelmed by your point.

as far as the scope of my world view, i didn't vote M #2 in all the polls on 11/19. or #3 in the coaches on 11/26. the pollsters did. the same polls that voted FLA #4.

and so it just seems narrow minded (or how about "parochial" or "provincial"?) of me to you that i'd get the idea that michigan was a) ranked ahead of FLA, or b) that we were #2? and getting out more would help me how? if i had been in NY or Calif the last month i would have read different AP/USAToday?Harris polls the previous 3 weeks than the ones i read at home?

when FLA beats tosu, you stop back by here and give me the big "i told you so", okay? maybe i'll ask Yost to let me put up a guest post entitled "gee, was i wrong"?

until then, i'll stick by the position that michigan is one of the two best teams in the country, and FLA ain't. and everyone but urban meyer knows it.

Mandel makes it clear that he can't tell which team is better, while saying that the voters probably thought, concerning Michigan being #2, "'You know what? Maybe it's not as sure as I thought.'" http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/stewart_mandel/12/03/bcs.reaction/index.html

Michael Ventre points out the obvious: it's impossible to say that there IS a #2 team.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16029462/

And, since you want some fan input other than my own, a FoxSports poll had 51/49 results in favor of Michigan (http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/6232016) which I'm SURE is only because half of those 300K are in Florida, while an ESPN SportsNation poll was in the 54/46 variety (you'll have to excuse my lack of effort since the Poll wasn't available in their archives). I know, I know, the overwhelming show of support for Michigan is deafening, right?

So, there's a couple for starters. Those are only on the major sites. But, I guess if you want more articles posted, you'll come back with another smarmy, shit-eating, sarcastic post requesting them, and I may go to the trouble of spending minutes looking for them. After all, there are only 80 million sports articles written every day; certainly only a few of them will disagree with your well-formed, expert opinion.

As for the polls that voted Michigan #2 (and then #3) in November... um, that was in November, wasn't it? Florida's season wasn't finished--but I guess it's fair to judge them on an incomplete season, since everyone with half a brian already knew that Michigan was the God-ordained #2 team in the nation. AFTER the season was complete, Florida was ranked #2. I know, it's silly that a win over the #8 team would impact people's impressions of Florida, but, what can ya do?

Hopefully you see where all of this is going. Nobody knows. You don't know, I don't know. You think Michigan would beat Florida on a neutral field, I think the opposite. It's all opinion, but since most of the opinions you choose to focus on are from people who are bitching about Michigan getting shafted, you think the whole world agrees with you. Wrong. Understandable, but wrong.

I'll bite. I think UofF is the second best team in the country based on the incomplete data we (as fans, poll voters, etc.) have to go on. So, don't say "everyone except Urban", ok? You usually have very good, objective posts that I usually get a big kick out of reading, now you're just understandably letting great passion for a very historical and storied program interfere with objecive thought. For the record, based on the same incomplete data we (as fans, poll voters, etc.) have to go on, I also think Michigan also has rightful claim for second. So far, it has not been proven that any team has broken the BCS rules to get ranked where they are. You're mission now is to take Auburn 2004's side and make some noise in the off season about the need for a playoff system. Tommy T and Urban have both bitched all season for such a system and got chastised on here royally for doing so. Don't change sides now.

The fact that both arguments are compelling tells me that this system is FATALLY flawed. I'm getting sick of all these debates every two years or so. In a perfect world, Michigan would play Florida for the right to play tOSU in the championship. We could call it the "Ad-lib" Bowl, because such an improvisation is the only logical choice to solve this problem. But, since when has the BCS ever dealt with logic?

care to articulate how Arizona state's SOS is rated #9 by sagarin with THIS ooc schedule then...

N. Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Hawaii

It's not that mysterious. (1) They played 9 conference games in a BCS conference (and being at the butt-end of the conference, played 7 teams better than them). (2) Their conference brethren, who they played, played mostly BCS and a smattering of decent non-BCS teams -- way way way more quality than the SEC, B10, or B12. (3) Colorado is BCS and Nevada is decent. (They didn't play Hawaii.)

Yost, Benny, et. al. - maybe your next live web party should involve one of those vibrating games with players representing UofM and UofF players for the opportunity to play OSU. You guys could call the plays live, as in, "Tebow takes the snap and does his usually left run, no wait, now he's going in circles, now he and his fullback are locked up in a mad circle." You could have Urban on the sidelines represented by the little baby figurine that comes in a King Cake for Mardi Gras. Carr could be represented by a stoic, quiet Rook chess piece. The Henne figure could wear a t-shirt that says, "The Army wants me because they're pretty damn sure I'm the only one that can overthrow the Taliban." Anon could be in the stands with a sign that says, "Go Bucks!" and Weiss could be at the concession stand looking in his secret extra large decoder ring for loose change.

Like it or not Michigan had its shot and it lost. That is why you line up and play the game. In addition Michigan did not win the Big 10. The Gators won the SEC and have yet to play OSU. It fits. Besides nothing would be settled in a remach, if Michigan were to win, it would settle nothing and if OSU were to win, it would cast doubt as to who was the real champion.

What I want to know is did Michigan have a choice Rose or Sugar? If so, how come they did not come south to play a worthy opponet? Who wants to play USC or ND? Both schools suck and are over rated. USC lost to two un-ranked teams and how is it that ND is even in the top 25??

Colorado is BCS but is 2-10Nevada is mid majorN. Arizona not evenHawaii is an upcoming bowl game - my mistake but even more funny cause at least they are ranked but don't count in SOS yet.

Plus they finished in the middle of their conference and only played 5 teams better than them and only 3 of those are ranked.

You said OOC was the key to the Pac 10's SOS both from a conf level and an individual level. So playing a mid major, a 2-10 BCS school, and a low major gets you the #8 toughest schedule in the country simply because your intra conference opponents played 14 bcs games?

I don't think anyone could convince me that Arizona played the 8th toughest schedule in the country.

the only reason I put that stat out there about Florida was because 1. it amazed me that they don't travel outside of their region and 2. it's relevant only because this game will be out of their region. i would have posted it even it if said they were 7-0-1 because i can't believe a major school can travel out of their region just 8 times in over 30 years.

i don't think that stat says anything though about who's going to win in Glendale - i really don't think it's going to be close as you would have guessed.

thanks for the props on my AZ state post btw (i said Arizona but it was AZ state)

Let’s face it, Michigan got screwed. Is it the rest of the world’s fault? No, Michigan had an opportunity to beat Ohio State and failed to capitalize. However, Florida also lost during the season and had several close calls to inferior teams. Both teams are flawed in that aspect.

We have heard all the excuses so far. Michigan is out because it already lost to Ohio State. Florida deserves a shot because it won its conference. Michigan didn’t win its conference. Michigan barely lost to the #1 team in the country. Florida had the toughest schedule. Michigan blasted almost all the teams it played during the season. The Big Ten is weak. Ohio State should not have to beat Michigan again. Need I say more?

The BCS is completely unfair. No matter how much tweaking is performed on the system, it always seems to fail. Every year someone gets screwed over for some reason or another. This year it was Michigan’s turn. Next year it will probably be a team from the Big 12.

The truth of the matter is that college football needs a playoff of some sort to settle issues like this. We could have a 4 or 8 team playoff and let the players determine the outcome. We could also continue with the bowl games for the other 56 or 60 teams. There is no reason why both systems could not exist at the same time. Unfortunately, it will never happen because of three simple reasons:

1.The bowl games are too profitable for the universities, conferences, coaches, and corporate sponsors.

2.Television ratings thrive on controversy.

3.Fans will travel to see their team no matter what.

As much as it sucks, it looks like we will be stuck with this system for a long time. Hopefully next time, Michigan will be on the inside looking out.

jim,thanks for nudge. maybe i'm off a bit today. but i don't think it's been by that much.

i thought i had been clear that i had no beef w/ FLA fans or Meyers for thinking they're #2, wanting to play tosu, and feeling deserving of the bid. i also thought i had been clear that i didn't fault them for campaigning for the spot.

i have never suggested FLA did anything "wrong".

that said, my bitch has consistently been that "the bcs" didn't follow its own mandate and instead made this year's selection a "beauty contest" (& the Auburn folks are right- they got f'd worse, but that doesn't make this less wrong, just less egregious).

there are countless news articles, talking heads, even those who agree w/ FLA getting the game, who have made the same point: in the final decision, the selection was not made on the basis of which team was 2nd best- it was made on a host of other considerations. considerations the bcs may never have gotten past (as wholesome goodness pointed out) but was supposed to address.

maybe i am just wrong here. maybe the pollsters, dozens and dozens of them all in one night, looked over the two teams and all came to the same, startling, and reverse decision- FLA was just a better team. i don't think that's what happened, but it could have.

maybe they watched FLA play SC, W. Carolina, and then Ark and all suddenly saw the light. i don't buy it, but maybe.

as for "who's #2?", you're entitled to your opinion. i guess that makes two now, You & Urban ;).

my beef is not that the polls flipped, but why & how. if you saw Herbstriet over the weekend, he was pretty much saying the same thing. i don't think i'm too far out on a limb w/ this.

Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't realize that the Pac 10 teams all played 9 conference games instead of 8.

If we don't get a playoff after the current BCS contract expires, I think the Big Ten and Pac 10 (and the Rose Bowl) should just pull out of this whole mess. The BCS already killed tradition more than a playoff ever would. Let's bring some back.

The talking heads on the TV keep saying that a "plus one" format is the next logical step towards a true playoff. If they give us that, then we can go back to the old bowl tie ins and have the top two teams after the bowl games are played play each other for the crown.

Who cares if they don't give us the "plus one" format. We should still pull out of the BCS. We'll have a split national championship every single year until they give us the playoff that we want.

LSU will loose to ND. They will come out flat. Who can get up to play ND?? Michigan will loose to USC for the same reason. USC just proved that they are over rated.

The BCS got it right the two best teams in the country are playing. Michigan had its shot on the field and lost. It did not win the Big 10, nor would it settle the issue if they beat OSU in a rematch. And if OSU were to defeat Michigan twice, what would that prove for OSU?

I think LSU would beat UF if they lined up and played again but the tigers had their chance, just like Michigan.

I would much perfered to see Michigan and LSU play and then let the Big 10 and SEC go head to head

Yost et al... I've actually come to tangentially like Michigan through this site and I simply wanted to relay my condolences for the corn holing you took from the voters. The only solace I take in this injustice is that the Maize and Blue will kick USC's ass in the Rose Bowl.

Let's hope the OSU-FL game is a good matchup and not one-sided like lots of folks think.

What do you think is the biggest reason folks want to see Florida get demolished?1. Because they were picked over UofM?2. Because of Urban's attitude about it all?3. Because OSU is a Big Ten team.4. So the SEC will shut up about how good its top teams are?

NOT SURE WHAT'S WORSE; URBAN MEYER PISSING AND MOANING AND PUTTING UP THE BIGGEST MUDSLINGING, VOTE SWINGING CAMPAIGN IN SPORTS HISTORY (well at least since Scott Frost in 1997), OR ALL OF THE HYPOCRITICAL MICHIGAN FANS. LLOYD CARR SETS A FINE EXAMPLE OF WHAT OUR PROGRAM SHOULD BE KNOWN FOR....NOT GETTING CAUGHT UP IN ALL THE HYPE AND BS THAT SURROUNDS THE SYSTEM. WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR A ROSE BOWL BERTH AGAINST USC. THERE ARE OBVIOUS FLAWS AND WE CAN ONLY HOPE THE OUTCOME THIS YEAR HAS GREAT INFLUENCE ON THE FUTURE OF THE DETERMINING OF A NATIONAL CHAMPION IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL. LET'S STOP THE COMPLAINING, IT IS WHAT IT IS. ARE WE UNHAPPY? YES. IS IT UNFAIR? OBVIOUSLY. ARE WE NUMBER 2? WHO KNOWS. YOU PLAY THE CARDS YOU'RE DEALT. WE SHOULD FOCUS ON USC AND SHOW EVERYONE HOW GREAT OF A TEAM MICHIGAN HAS THIS YEAR THE WAY BO, LLOYD AND COMPANY WOULD WANT....ON THE FIELD.

to a man, almost all of the FLA grads i know are "good" guys that i like. i went to the outback w/against them in '03 and it was a hoot. most of the FLA angst is really towards the system, accented by Urban's approach to this. that's why i've tried to not knock them hard- it's not their fault they have one loss and want to play for the mnc.

in all honsety, by the time the game comes around i'll probably be bleeding orange & blue from all the nonsense by tosu fans here in columbus.

really, after so much controversy and craziness in the past 48 hours - that's all you can come up with? - I'm a chick weighing in at a buck-ten and can come up with something better than that. have fun watching the gators lose on Jan. 8

Real classy post there. Wow, talk about losing any credibility you may have had. Use some class and lose the profanity.

Moving on:

Personally I was almost at the point of hoping we would face UM again. 'They asked for it. Let's give it to em' I think it would be absolutely fascinating watching the OHIO STATE printer machines working overtime churning out Mike Hart's postgame quotes. Dude's 0-3 against us and he still says they have a better team.

BUT> I do say M*ch*g*n is the second best team in the country. I will not argue against that fact. However, if you are complaining about the way the BCS is run, I'll concede that ground to you and we'll imagine it would be run like the NBA or the NFL. Has anyone seen the Lakers and the Spurs in the championship game lately? Five years ago they were clearly the two best teams. Oh wait, they're both in the same conference so when the Lakers won the Conference Championship the Spurs went home to watch a far inferior New Jersey Nets team play and lose to the Lakers. Life sucks. Get over it! I don't like the BCS either but thats why we dont wanna leave it up to the human element. Win all your games and you wouldnt be in this position right now. Personally if we'd be playing Michigan I'd be more excited than I am now, but it didn't happen.

(Not to mention the fact that before THE GAME both Tressel AND LLLLLoyd Carr said the loser should not be permitted to play in the National Championship.) Sorry, should we not take you at your word LLLLLoyd?

Oh, I thought you were asking about the statistics behind the computers ranking the Pac10 school's SOS so high. I didn't realize we were just supposed to say it's stupid because you don't understand it. Check. I think that's all the help I can provide.

All this bickering is pointless. Who cares who the #2 team is? OSU has already knocked off two #2 teams and they are going to make it a third on Jan 8th. Both UF and UM are going to have nothing left to say after that.

Well, I feel for you guys. I really think Michigan is a better team than Florida but I think a lot of people just didn't want a rematch. But at least Michigan didn't go undefeated, also win a conference championship game, and still get fucked out of it like Auburn a couple of years ago. And I have to agree with your coach, this politicking on TV shit just makes me sick.

By the way, not to talk about the "good old days" but if we went back to pre-BCS we would have USC-Ohio State in the Rose, Florida and either Michigan or Louisville in the Sugar and Oklahoma and Louisville or Michigan in the Orange (with BYU in the Holiday vs. Wisconsin and the Fiesta scrambling for the best match-up, probably Boise and Arkansas or Wisconsin). Think about it: No one vs. two but four or five teams STILL alive. Even Wisconsin! I know voters can be pretty awful as has been shown this year but you would at least get two polls and a fighting chance. Lots of schools alive and lots of interest. This year--yawn. And I know how proponents of the BCS say to fight it out on the field--but are you really doing so with such a flawed system? How about one computer-based poll and one human only? So what if there's a split?

In my opinion, this whole controversy exemplifies both why we should and should not include humans in the polls; yes, I'm saying that the good and bad reason for having human element in deciding the rankings is the same reason. As many others have said, many human voters in the polls not only screwed over UM, but other teams as well. At the same time, us Wolverines would be grateful to the human element had they been rightfully deemed #2. This is to say, the human element of the polls both make and break the "true" rankings. It scares me to death that some looney can be part of the deciding factor in who gets what ranking (with the exception of some of the coaches who actually watch film of the top 25 teams). I'd rather there be only computer rankings. Shit, a playoff is the easiest solution but we have this same fucking conversation every year and we never get a new system. I don't mean to be a pessimist but, I don't ever see us having a playoff.

As a fan without any allegiance to Michigan, Florida or Ohio State, I personally simply did not want to see a rematch.

Forget how a game is a national championship game for a moment. The purpose of bowls is for teams from different conferences to meet at a neutral site. Arkansas will play Wisconsin, who doesn't seem to have a single great win. USC will play Michigan, who both count a beating of ND as their best win.

Bowls with the right matchups let the better conferences come out of the woodwork. I still remember Cal going through the same exact motions as this site in 2004 over Texas going to number 4. Well, Texas beat Michigan in the rose bowl, while Cal lost to Texas Tech, a team that Texas beat earlier in the year.

So, I'd hate to see a bowl ever pit two teams from the same conference. Just think, if Florida beat ND easily and the rest of the SEC did well in their bowl games including a big Arkansas victory over Wisconsin, we would be scratching our heads about whether the SEC champion just might have been better than the Michigan/OSU victor.

On the other hand, with OSU playing Florida, we still know that OSU is the better team than UM, considering that the two teams played on a 100 yard field for 60 minutes and OSU scored more points.

BTW, I'm a Georgia Tech fan, but I was actually raised a huge FSU fan. If anything, I would be biased against Florida and the SEC, being ACC throughout. But I will never support a game after Christmas between two teams from the same conference. We play the regular season to already determine who in conference is better; we don't need bowl games to tell us.

My favorite quote from someone that knows football to those homers that only have a rooting interest in the sport (even the obnoxious OSU fans still eating humble pie)..."You think you know, but you don't know. And you never will."

Folks, Jim Walden has forgotten more about football than you blogging complainers will ever know. Hypocrisy is part of the charm of college football. Just stick to cheering for your team.

Follow the MZone

Subscribe To

The MZone-slash-MichiganZone.net-slash-MichiganZone.blogspot.com is in no way affiliated with the University of Michigan and/or U-M football in any way. If you thought it was, frankly I'm surprised you know how to use a computer.